ARCHIVED -  Letter

Ottawa, 16 February 2012

O/Ref.: 8740-C41-201201318

BY E-MAIL

Pierre Allard
Director, Business Development
CoopTel
5521 De l'Aéroport Road
Valcourt, QC 
J0E 2L0
pallard@cooptel.qc.ca

Subject:  Tariff notice 71 – Carrier Access Tariff for Local Network Interconnection

Mr. Allard:

On 2 February 2012, the Commission received the above-mentioned tariff notice from CoopTel. In its application, CoopTel indicated that the proposed tariff was consistent with the Commission's determinations in CoopTel – Implementation of local competition for Cogeco Cable Inc., Telecom Decision CRTC 2012-36, 24 January 2012. The company indicated that its application qualified as a Group B retail filing pursuant to Approval processes for tariff applications and intercarrier agreements, Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-455, 5 July 2010 (Information Bulletin 2010-455).

Commission staff reviewed CoopTel's application, and considers that a number of changes are necessary, as described below.

In its tariff proposal, CoopTel indicated that according to the current tariff, the competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) would be considered to be a customer of CoopTel. Commission staff notes that in Decision 97-8,¹ which established the regulatory framework for the implementation of local competition, the Commission had adopted the principle that CLECs were not simply customers of incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), but rather carriers of equal stature to the ILECs in the local exchange market.  Commission staff therefore considers that the statement should be deleted from CoopTel's tariff proposal.

CoopTel also indicated that the CLEC would be responsible for providing, at its own expense, half the distance between the point of interconnection (POI) between it and CoopTel. Commission staff notes that CoopTel's proposal does not reflect the Commission's conclusion in Decision 97-8, in which it prescribes the equal sharing of the costs of interconnection. Staff also notes that in Decision 97-8 the Commission permitted CLECs to establish their own calling areas for the purpose of establishing retail tariffs, contrary to what is stipulated in CoopTel's tariff proposal. Therefore, the Commission considers that those statements should be deleted from CoopTel's tariff proposal.

As for billing for linking charges, Commission staff notes that Telecom Order 98-486² stipulates that when a CLEC uses the network of a third party for the provision of signalling transmission and switching services, the signalling point of interconnection (SPOI) provided by the third party should be considered as being the CLEC's designated SPOI. The Commission considers that if CoopTel uses the network of a third party to establish its signalling point of interconnection, the CLEC is not required to pay interconnection charges associated with CoopTel’s traffic. Commission staff therefore considers that CoopTel amend its tariff accordingly.

Further, Commission staff notes that CoopTel included provisions for the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation which, in accordance with Telecom Decision
2010-787,³ apply only to the operating territories of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership, and Bell Canada. Commission staff therefore considers that it is appropriate to remove those provisions from CoopTel’s tariff proposal.

Accordingly, staff requires CoopTel to file an amended application that includes the changes set out in the Appendix no later than 23 February 2012.

Moreover, Commission staff considers that this application does not satisfy the definition of Group B retail tariff filings set out in Information Bulletin 2010-455, since it does not address services provided to retail customers, but rather services that would be provided only to competitors.  For purposes of efficiency, therefore, the Commission will process this application as a Competitor tariff filing rather than close the file and require the company to re-file it as a new application.

The application will therefore follow the procedure described in Information Bulletin
2010-455 regarding competitor tariffs:

• Interested parties may file an intervention within 30 calendar days of the filing date of the application; and
• The applicant may file reply comments within 10 calendar days of the deadline for filing interventions.

Accordingly, the company is not to implement the proposed amendments until the Commission has rendered its determination regarding this application in the form of an order.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by] 

Suzanne Bédard
Senior Manager, Tariffs
Telecommunications

cc. Sylvie Labbé, CRTC, 819-953-4945, sylvie.labbe@crtc.gc.ca

[1]Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997.

[2]TRANSITING AND POINTS OF INTERCONNECTION, Telecom Order CRTC 98-486, 19 May 1998.

[3]Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada - Proposed revision to the treatment of imbalance traffic compensation, Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787, 25 October 2010, amended by Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-787-1, 16 August 2011.

Appendix – Requested changes to CoopTel's tariff proposal

CoopTel is to make the following changes to its tariff proposal:

• On page 1, delete item 4.7.1(g):
  
  The CLEC is considered to be the client of the company with respect to connection services provided under this tariff, including billing.
• On page 2, delete item 4.7.1(o):
  
  The required CCS7 signalling services are provided by a CCS7 transit service in accordance with the applicable terms and tariffs of a thrid-party supplier. The CLEC is to accept in full the CCS7 transit fees billed by the third party associated with its local service in the Incumbent territory for all calls involving the CLEC and the company in the latter’s territory, regardless of who makes the call. The company requires confirmation of this liability from the third party, and this condition shall be stipulated on Schedule C, to be signed by the CLEC and the company. 
• On page 3, item 4.7.2 – Definitions, delete the last sentence of the definition of “point of interconnection (POI)”:
  
  The CLEC is responsible for providing at its expense half the distance between the two POIs (including transmission equipment in its POP) for shared-cost facilities.
• On page 4, item 4.7.2 – Definitions, delete the last sentence of the definition of “extended service area (ESA)”:
  
  The CLEC is to comply with the same ESA for its own subscribers.
• On page 7, replace the first sentence of item 4.7.4.2(a) with the following:
  
  In the event of traffic between the operating territories of the company and a CLEC on designated bill and keep trunks, a traffic imbalance may develop.
• On page 7, delete item 4.7.4.2(b):
  
   For the purpose of calculating imbalance fees between the two parties, the CLEC’s tariff must be the same as that of the company.
• On page 9, delete item 4.7.4.2(f) and the accompanying table:
  
  The table below indicates the percentages of the monthly compensation payments to a CLEC when the total volume of traffic exchanged between the company and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than 80 percent of the total traffic exchanged between the company and the CLEC (the Traffic Threshold). The discounts set out in the table below will continue to apply for each month until the traffic falls to, or below, the Traffic Threshold.
  
  Following the initial application of the discounts in the table below, those discounts will apply in any subsequent month when the total volume of traffic exchanged between the company and a CLEC over all their local shared-cost trunks is at least 10 million minutes per month, and the volume of traffic in the direction of that CLEC network is more than the Traffic Threshold.
  
  The compensation payments are calculated by applying the percentages in the table below to the amounts payable using the rates identified in the tables above.
• On page 10, delete the second paragraph of item 4.7.4.3 – CCS7 signalling:
  
  The CLEC must therefore ensure that it has access to this third-party service, and it is agreed that the CLEC will cover 100% of the CCS7 transit fees charged by the third party for calls between the CLEC’s subscribers and those of the company in the incumbent exchanges. A written record of this agreement between the third party and the CLEC is to be submitted to the company before the company signs Schedule C with the CLEC, which is required for the Commission to allow the local service of the CLEC in the incumbent exchanges.

Date modified:

2012-02-16